Posted on 09/05/2013 1:00:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
During a hearing in front of the House Foreign Relations Committee Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the United States would eventually need to put boots on the ground in Syria in order to secure stockpiles of chemical weapons. When pressed on the issue, Kerry quickly walked back the troops on the ground option and stated he was simply "thinking out loud" when he made the statement. A resolution passed by the Senate Armed Service Committee yesterday, leaving wiggle room for troops to be eventually placed on the ground in Syria.
Now, the Daily Mail is reporting the Pentagon knew a year ago that in order to effectively secure chemical weapons, at least 75,000 ground troops would need to be deployed.
Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.
'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.
'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'
Nuke them
“The question now is this: What is the goal of the United States? To secure chemical weapons or to destroy them.”
Yes, Mr. _Resident. What IS your goal here? What IS your exit strategy?
*SMIRK* This administration sickens me.
Obama & Kerry would love to destroy the “Property Of Iraq Republican Guard”.
You know, if 0bama was any kind of leader (haha), he would try to get Russia and China to join with the US and the UN to request that Assad disarm and surrender all their chemical weapons. If the sole purpose is to keep these weapons from being used again, he should be able to make this happen.
But since his purpose to to help his MB buddies, he can’t imagine doing this.
I hot an idea let’s just send in ALL of the NEWLY Minted FEMALE Combatants.
Where in the hell did Syria get WMDs on this scale or quality? And how do we know what they have?
As Gomer Pyle would say...”Surprise, surprise, surprise”
If Assad disarms we will have the Brotherhood running things in a week.
Someone should alert our supreme stratego player we used to have some military presence in Iraq, that would be the next country to the east. Also, someone should alert him those units noted on his forces chart as reserve are mostly not active at the moment.
So, where will the forces come from Supreme Stratego Player?
This reminds me of when the Ruskies invaded Czeckoslovakia in 68. We were committed elsewhere but the bright light planners put a few companies of the 101st on airplanes with 150 rds of ammo in case they were needed in Europe.
Boy Obama sure looks stupid pulling out our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan when they knew there was trouble brewing in Syria as far back as 2012.
Maybe someone in the MSM will write about it?
1.) What if when attacking Assad's military assets, we inadvertently kill civilians?
2.) What if while attacking any part of Assad's military assets a Russian adviser or advisers are inadvertently killed?
3.) What if while attacking any part of Assad's military assets we accidentally hit a store of chemical weapons and they are released into a neighborhood?
4.) What if we effectively hit Assad's military assets and leave chemical weapons unsecured. Who would have access to them? How do we prevent al-Qaeda from getting their hands on them?
5.) What happens if/when Assad demonstrates his ability to fight back and actually sinks one of our war ships?
6.) What if Russia comes to the aid of their ally (like they said they would) and sinks one of our war ships?
I haven't heard ANY of these questions being asked of ANYBODY in authority!
Now if a dumb dumb like me can think to ask these questions, why can't those supposedly smarter than me ask the same thing of those who are trying as hard as they can to rush us off to war?
Kattie was great on The Five. They should replace that airhead Dana Perino with her. Pavlich is smart and interesting. Perino is a fool.
Not sure that I believe most of those polls.
My thoughts exactly....why ‘secure’ something dangerous? Destroy it with the most destructive means possible.
Anyone worrying about collateral damage - we can drop them some leaflets a few days before telling them to go buy some 50,000 sun block...
Hell no!! No troops to Syria to fight FOR al-Qaeda!! We have absolutely zero national interest, zero to gain, but everything to lose. This is nothing more than Obama’s continuing treasonous fight to have his pals the Muslim Brotherhood controlling all of the Middle East.
This is Obama’s war, not America’s!!
NO BLOOD FOR OBAMA!!
Don’t count on it...
Despite what anyone might say, that Dana Perino is a certified liberal. She may have worked for Bush, but she’ll betray you in a heartbeat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.